I don't wish to prolong the issue of the morality of homosexual behavior and
relationships, since my reason for posting messages having to do with the
meaning and interpretation of biblical texts cited to justify the contention
that the Bible condemns homosexuality and homosexual behavior is to clarify
their meaning and suggest that in some instances they may be popularly
misunderstood. Lest anyone infer otherwise, let me make it clear that I am
not acting as an advocate for gay marriages or the gay lifestyle in these
messages. But let me make one more comment, in response to Moorad's: "[A] I
have often heard and read that the relationship of Christ to His apostles
may have had certain homosexual leanings. [B] I ask you, if such was the
case wouldn’t Christ speak explicitly about such type of relationships and
had condoned them and even given His blessings? [C] Sometimes silence
speaks tons of words! "

I do not for a minute think that any canonical evidence regarding the
relationship of Christ to his apostles can justifiably support the assertion
of certain homosexual leanings. I think this suggestion that some gay
advocates have put out is nonsense to anyone who carefully reads the gospels
and understands the relationship between teacher and disciples in Jewish
culture. Therefore, the rest of Moorad's statement makes no sense to me. Of
his syllogism, A I judge invalid; B the "if" clause isn't the case, and if
it were, it does not necessarily follow that Christ would speak about it,
condone etc.; [C] silence in this instance proves nothing.

> One cannot be writing about divorce if one is not considering the notion
of marriage. Therefore, one certainly has the definition of Christian
marriage in those verses. I have often heard and read that the relationship
of Christ to His apostles may have had certain homosexual leanings. I ask
you, if such was the case wouldn’t Christ speak explicitly about such type
of relationships and had condoned them and even given His blessings?
Sometimes silence speaks tons of words! Moorad
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Schneider [mailto:rjschn39@bellsouth.net]
> Sent: Wed 1/22/2003 11:00 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad; asa@calvin.edu> Cc:
> Subject: Re: An interesting essay for evangelicals
>
>
>
> Moorad writes:
>
> > I believe Jesus does address the issue of homosexuality in Mark 10:6-8
> “But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR
> THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL
> BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh.” Jesus
> certainly defines what Christian marriage is. So much for homosexual
> marriages! Also in the epistle to the Ephesians 5:22-33, Paul uses
> Christian marriage to teach the relationship of Christ to the Church,
where
> Paul quotes the above verses, which are actually found in the Old
Testament.
> Moorad
>
>
> Bob's reply:
>
> Moorad, I think these two quotations are perfect examples of taking
> verses out of context and then drawing illogical conclusions from them.
The
> context of Jesus' allusion to Genesis 2:24 is a discussion on divorce, not
> same-sex relations; Jesus was stating that he deems Moses' permission of
> divorce was a concession to men's "hardness of heart," and goes on to say
to
> his disciples later that to remarry after divorce is to commit adultery
(in
> Matt. 19:9, Jesus is reported as making an exception for unchastity). If
> you were arguing that therefore Jesus was opposed to divorce, I could see
> your point. But to claim that he was addressing the issue of
homosexuality
> is to read into his statement something that is not there. Sorry, but
this
> argument is not logical. The same is the case for the statement about
> marital relations in the household code in Ephesians 5. To conclude that
> this writer was implying a negative judgment about same-sex relations by
the
> mere fact that he is making statements about the relations between
husbands
> and wives is to draw an erroneous conclusion. This is aside from the fact
> that enduring same-sex relationships as the equivalent to marriage were
not
> a feature of the cultures of the Roman Empire of that time, as I stated in
> my note; therefore, it was not a concept that one should expect either
Jesus
> or Paul to think about, or that the matter would have ever come up for
> discussion. I doubt very much it was in their minds when the one spoke
and
> the other wrote.
>
> Bob
>
>
>